lusterniafandomcom-20200216-history
Report 1711
Report #1711 Skillset: Skill: Impale Org: Glomdoring Status: Completed Jul 2017 Furies' Decision: Yes. Problem: Cavalier and Pureblade impale is a bit strong with the recent change for 2h weapons to build wounding and an affliction at the same time-- once you get it, it is very easy to continually re-apply. This report seeks to adjust it to remove the potential for perma-pin-spam, while not hamstringing 2h weapons once more. R: 0 Solution #1: When receiving the Impaled affliction from a *modifier* (not from anything else that does not use the Wounding system, such as Pincharge), the victim should get a cooldown of two seconds from the time the impale *ends* (writhed out, withdrawn, rended, or carved) during which they are immune to being reafflicted by the Impale modifier. If the victim receives another attack within that window that is using the Impale modifier, the attack should be treated as if the victim did not have enough wounding for the modifier to land (so it will do the full wounding instead). Player Comments: ---on 6/29 @ 21:41 writes: The goal here is to provide a window that the target can initiate commands and act-- to escape, protect themselves, etc, instead of trying to spam through someone doing an alias that does both "rend-attack" to immediately reapply the impale. ---on 6/29 @ 21:41 sets as pending ---on 6/29 @ 22:30 writes: This is a good change. It's quite possible in groups, if you can get the initial wounds, to chain impales indefinitely, with there being no realistic counter other than hoping an ally can save you. The 2her wounding buff to modifiers makes this easier to achieve as well. ---on 6/30 @ 03:38 writes: Ok ---on 7/1 @ 19:59 writes: I'm on board ---on 7/1 @ 20:44 writes: Sounds good. ---on 7/1 @ 20:44 writes: Sounds good. ---on 7/2 @ 15:58 writes: Supported ---on 7/2 @ 19:30 writes: As a note I'd be keen to see this immunity to to impale extend to all types of impales. Pincharge, Stag etc. ---on 7/3 @ 00:32 writes: This is a g ood change, but I am not certain that this is the best implementation. Why not make impale not do wounds instead? ---on 7/3 @ 00:44 writes: Wounds are an important part of a warrior's progress. If you do that, you're basically making it so if a warrior is going for the gut the only thing they can ever hope to do is be a sometimes-impale-and-otherwise-accomplish-nothing. If you can keep building wounds, however, it does allow you to pursue other options as well instead of giving up your entire wound-building offense to play support. ---on 7/7 @ 20:39 writes: Supported. ---on 7/14 @ 01:10 writes: I'm not sure pincharge should get a free pass on immunity just because it uses power directly instead of wounds but otherwise I support this change. ---on 7/14 @ 04:28 writes: I'm kind of thinking that it should be all impales, just like all stuns and blackouts respect their respective immunities. ---on 7/14 @ 23:09 writes: Agreed on it effecting all impales irregardless of source or power cost. Power cost stuns work the same as regular stuns and can hit immunity so I think impales should be the same. ---on 7/14 @ 23:18 writes: That is not part of the report-- power cost stuns don't use a separate (longer) balance, and provide the full effect of their stun when it is applied whereas pincharge is not part of a warrior's offense. Burning your beast balance during an immunity window is a pretty significant nerf above and beyond what is necessary. ---on 7/15 @ 08:32 writes: Power cost stuns come with.. a power cost which are usually significant (6p discordantchord?) - much more significant than a beast balance. I would argue pincharge is overpowered. Most cavaliers, including myself when I played it, found it too easy and effective to just spam pincharge on a target while allies killed them slowly. ---on 7/15 @ 13:40 writes: Power cost stuns, especially ones with that high a cost, usually have other effects, too. Discordantchord is not only a stun. You're comparing apples and oranges here. You're welcome to envoy Pincharge separately if you want, but this solution is not a good one for it given its separate balance. ---on 7/17 @ 16:43 writes: Can't see any reason why it would not effect all impales. If you feel an impale skill is too weak after this change you could envoy that skill for a buff but it'd just make sense to standarise immunities across the board to me. ---on 7/17 @ 22:48 writes: Nah. Far better to report a skill that has completely different requirements / timing on its own if you think it has issues than trying to shoehorn it into something else. You literally cannot spam pincharge because it has a much longer, separate balance (beast balance) and the victim can writhe out before you're able to do it again anyways. Adding yet another timer on top of that is unnecessary. ---on 7/17 @ 23:02 writes: Just because this report wasn't originally written with pincharge in mind, it doesn't mean that the scope doesn't actually extend to it. I think that all impales should be given the same treatment just like all stuns and blackouts are. If pincharge, or any other impale, needs a buff later (not that I think it would) then we can do so with this mechanic already being part of it. ---on 7/18 @ 09:34 writes: As a cavalier, I'd like to note that applying this solution to pincharge would only matter in the case of 2+ cavaliers; with a single cavalier, the writhe time + 2s immunity would still be less than beast balance recovery time. ---on 7/18 @ 18:45 writes: Fair point Iytha it'd only really matter to cavaliers where someone else in the room was spamming impale. Effecting all impales sounds good. ---on 7/18 @ 21:09 writes: I disagree, and will point at my previous statements. The two are different in terms of execution, timing, cost, and (wounding)effect, and I strongly feel that they should be treated differently. ---on 7/19 @ 23:57 writes: Last I checked a bard can spend a huge chunk of power on a dchord which can be overwritten by stun immunity so I think that the possibility of burning 2p and a beast balance is not beyond the pale but that said I'm fine with solution 1 as it is written as well. ---on 7/20 @ 00:07 writes: DChord is doing more than just the stun, though. My main issue with the bulk of the arguments stated really comes down to: The room requirements are different, the cost is different, the effects (sans impale) are different, they have significantly different balances, they have different blocks, they're just not the same skills at all. And the counterargument mostly seems to be 1) "But Impale!" and 2) "If it's a problem we can envoy it again". That is not, however, the way this should work-- we shouldn't be trying to shoehorn a different skill because it has *one* similarity in this case, with a "report it again later if you have a problem". If it's a problem as-is, it should have its own solution designed for it, not a "who cares if we break it" attitude. I don't mind reviewing it in its own report-- my objection is to trying to pin something onto the report that is specifically and -explicitly- not being requested. ---on 7/20 @ 00:36 writes: You are discounting the fact that most of us are actually saying we don't think pincharge or any other impale are going to be broken as a result of this. We are just saying that -if- it does end up being broken, it is better that we fix it with this change already factored in. Solution 4s are added at times. You may not believe that pincharge fits into the scope of this report, but clearly there are many of us who do. ---on 7/20 @ 01:12 writes: Solution 4s are added at times, but in this case it is unnecessary for the reasons I've outlined. It is better to write a report to make a change than to try to sol4 something in that by your own admission, in the statement you have just made, may need a future report to adjust it yet again. ---on 7/23 @ 00:19 writes: I don't think its unnecessary Xenthos I think a standard immunity to all impale works as a good concept. I understand the points your making but generally I think a standard immunity would be good overall. I mean pin charge isnt just an impale in the same way that dchord isnt just a stun as you point out. There is nothing wrong with individuals and teams having to use pincharge/dchord/any stuns/impales in a controlled manner with the risk of failure if they use them incorrectly. ---on 7/23 @ 09:40 writes: I support the aforementioned idea of adding a blanket impale immunity a la stun/blackout. The original report wasn't meant to nerf pincharge, but I think it's in order. Two birds with one stone and all. ---on 7/29 @ 22:23 writes: Support the solution, I think blanket impale immunity makes sense too. I will note that - unless my memory fails me - Pureblade CARVE does NOT end the impale, though the solution lists it on the list of 'impale end conditions.' The immunity vs pureblade impale should only be applied on writhe out, not on carve.